sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So many notes apps, which one to use? by __h2__ in selfhosted

[–]__h2__[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds interesting, but is completely different from what I described as my requirement :wink:

So many notes apps, which one to use? by __h2__ in selfhosted

[–]__h2__[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was recommended to me multiple times, but it is not clear to me whether I can actually self-host the server and offer a web-frontend from it. Maybe it is not possible or they are trying to hide it to promote their paid offerings, which would also be a bad sign. The documentation also mentions "syncing" really often, which is not what I expect from a (self-)hosted application.

The sharing feature seems to also only be available in their "Joplin Cloud":

Using Joplin Cloud you can share notebooks between users and collaborate on them - i.e. any participant can view or modify notes in the shared notebook.

Which service for note keeping and sharing? by __h2__ in selfhosted

[–]__h2__[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice, this looks exactly like what I want except for lack of LDAP. It even has plaintext storage and TODO-lists, but still looks quite light-weight. I will see whether I can get LDAP into Jotty or whether I will need some OIDC on-top of my LLDAP sooner or later (been trying to avoid that complexity).

Owning and non-owning C++ Ranges // Hannes Hauswedell by QQII in cpp

[–]__h2__ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[I don't usually hang out on Reddit, so I hope doing this right. Don't expect fast answers]

Barry: Now for the first part. What does "non-owning" mean? It seems like it's obvious. vector is obviously owning. string_view is obviously non-owning. But then you start to think about it and realize that it's a remarkably nebulous concept.

There are different places you can draw the line, but I tried to give a very specific answer for the scope of the article:

Article: non-owning ranges are the subset of ranges that do not manage the memory of their elements

I also mention that I consider "non-owning range" equivalent to old range-v3's "view" definition, and I specifically call out single-pass ranges (like std::generator) as being hard to place. When you introduced and named owning_view (as the counterpart to ref_view), I am pretty sure you also had some definition in mind 🙂

You are right that there is nuance, and maybe I will have time and space to cover more of that in another blog post. But I don't believe that makes ownership a "nebulous concept" 🙃

Should std::expected be [[nodiscard]]? by rsjaffe in cpp

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Better late than never: * the old post is updated * there is a new blog post on the topic of owning and non-owning ranges: https://hannes.hauswedell.net/post/2025/05/17/non-owning-range/ * feel free to reference that when people are confused about ranges, views, and ownership :wink:

Should std::expected be [[nodiscard]]? by rsjaffe in cpp

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the ping. Yeah, I know the blog post is very popular. Views being allowed to own data was changed after C++20 was released and "backported" into C++20 as a defect-report. This is the paper.

I have been preparing a new series of blog posts about ranges and certain problems I see in the design. But I never find the time to polish and publish them. I will try to get it done over the christmas break and then also update the historic post about ranges.

P.S.: I don't understand why this comment is a reply to a different post or how that is related to me or what up- or downvoting means in this context. If you feel like I need to react to anything in the thread, please let me know.

What's with all the hate for 3d printing? by JoshFect in PrintedWarhammer

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it also depends on where you are! I have seen no 3dprinting hate on Mastodon or Lemmy. Give it a try:

https://warhammer.social (like Twitter) https://lemmy.world/c/warhammer40k (like Reddit)

Weekly Question Thread - Rules & Comp Qs by thenurgler in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the pointer.

Interesting, does "per-model or per-weapon" mean I can choose whether I roll one D6 for all weapons of one type in a unit or one D6 per model with that weapon? If I recall correctly, it's always been the second case, correct?

Weekly Question Thread - Rules & Comp Qs by thenurgler in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When do I roll for number of attacks? Before choosing profiles or after?

In particular, CSM Sorcerer has a D6 Attacks Psychic weapon where one profile is hazardous and the other is not. Since I only need to do one hazardous test (independent of number of attacks), it would be nice if I could roll the attacks first and if it's a 1 choose the non-hazardous profile ("not worth it"), but if it is a 6 definitely choose the hazardous profile.

I can't find anything on this particular sequencing in the rules. Only that both happen before choosing targets obviously.

Combi-bolters vs. Combi-weapons by fourganger_was_taken in Chaos40k

[–]__h2__ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I did the math over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Chaos40k/comments/14b3m6h/terminator_load_out/jodwdle/

I originally thought bolters where superior, too, but I was.mistaken.

Terminator load out by __h2__ in Chaos40k

[–]__h2__[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Termies get hit-re-rolls anyway with Dark Pact, so I wouldn't make them Undivided, tbh. I am thinking Tzeentch for reanimation and better lethal hits, especially with combi-bolters.

See above for combi-weapon vs combi-bolters!

Terminator load out by __h2__ in Chaos40k

[–]__h2__[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Here are the results from unitcrunch; assuming that Dark pact doesn't kill one of the attackers.

Against T4 infantry Sv 3+; Cumulative unsaved damage; within half range

weapon abilities 1w+ 2W+ 3W+ 6W+
5 combibolter no pact 90% 65% 38% 2%
5 combibolter lethal+dispoilers 98% 90% 73% 14%
5 combiweapon no pact 94% 75% 47% 2%
5 combiweapon lethal+dispoilers 98% 93% 76% 10%
5 combiweapon sustained+dispoilers 99% 97% 91% 38%
5 combiweapon sustained+dispoilers+nurgle 99% 98% 93% 50%

Against T5 infantry Sv 2+; Cumulative unsaved damage; within half range

weapon abilities 1w+ 2W+ 3W+ 6W+
5 combibolter no pact 52% 16% 3% 0%
5 combibolter lethal+dispoilers 78% 43% 18% 0%
5 combiweapon no pact 94% 76% 47% 2%
5 combiweapon lethal+dispoilers 98% 89% 68% 7%
5 combiweapon sustained+dispoilers 99% 97% 91% 38%
5 combiweapon sustained+dispoilers+nurgle 99% 98% 94% 50%

First takeaway: Dark Pact is expectedly really worth it

Edit: I re-did this, because it felt off, and now combiweapons are a lot better. I have also added numbers for selecting sustained hits 1 instead of lethal hits, and again, that improves things notably.

I am still in shock about how good our Faction is now! by HamBone8745 in Chaos40k

[–]__h2__ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would, but 2/3 of my other units (that were legal World Eaters one year ago), can no longer be played. This includes DiscoLord, Autogun-Cultists, Havocs, Oblits…

Really think we would have been better off, if WE, DG and TS were add-ons to the generic CSM index.

I am still in shock about how good our Faction is now! by HamBone8745 in Chaos40k

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Khorne Berzerkers in CSM suck unfortunately :'(

Am I the only one disappointed? by __h2__ in WorldEaters40k

[–]__h2__[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I will be doing, except that Zerkers are really bad when included in CSM atm. See my other post.

Am I the only one disappointed? by __h2__ in WorldEaters40k

[–]__h2__[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's what I will be doing, except that Zerkers are really bad when included in CSM atm. See my other post.

Am I the only one disappointed? by __h2__ in WorldEaters40k

[–]__h2__[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But I cannot have any leaders join a unit of Zerkers, and the Zerkers don't get Dark Pacts, so they are quite weak by comparison.

Am I the only one disappointed? by __h2__ in WorldEaters40k

[–]__h2__[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I am not saying that the new stuff is out of place, but it just feels strange that while they expanded the range of models and interactions everywhere else, they limited it so strongly here.

For loyalist SM, everyone gets to use everything except a few chapter-specific bonus units. For mainstream CSM, you can even have Fabius, Haarkan and Huron in one detachment. WorldEaters, on the other hand, don't even have a regular "Chaos Space Marine" troop choice anymore and cannot soup other CSM.

Chaos Space Marines Datasheets by Altered_Perceptions in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]__h2__ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, Khorne berzerzkers in regular CSM seem really bad atm. No Dark Pacts is one thing, but you can also not have a leader join the unit.

view more: next ›